,
16 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Well, it would count as ineffective in the stats for two separate months. I have just finished drafting an explanation about how it all works, which will follow in rather long thread.
OK so here is how it works. Resident Judge is responsible for listing. Listing Officer should only be operating in accordance with RJ policy and directions. Issues can and should be taken up with RJs. /1
Case received from Mags Ct and case record created on Crest and Exhibit by court staff. Stats automatically generated by Crest. At PTPH if NG plea, list for trial; if G plea then ‘disposed of’ (after sentence) and timeliness is recorded for that case in completed cases. /2
If a case listed for trial pleads before the trial date it is “vacated”. If pulled for any other reason before listed trial date it is a ‘vacated trial’ and shows up in stats as such. On day of trial if it pleads or goes off for any reason then it is “ineffective” as a trial. /3
Ineffective trials are then broken down in the stats between prosecution/defence/court reasons. Those themselves are broken down into nearly 30 sub categories which are quite detailed. Eg court reasons – no time, no judge, no interpreter (!), no jurors etc. /4
I think cracked trials may now be a separate category from ineffective. Effective trials are those that are listed for trial that day and not ineffective. If a case goes off and comes back it counts again in the stats and will be either vacated/ineffective/cracked/effective. /5
These stats are not true measures of efficiency. In 2015 Thirlwall J (then) with a group of RJs and the statisticians drew up a 'performance tool' to try and focus on a different way of measuring efficiency. /6
I believe it is used by RJs in discussions with PJs on a quarterly basis to look at how efficiently a court is running. HMCTS still focuses on its legacy tools. /7
Attempts were made to get HMCTS to draw together vacated and ineffective figures and to distinguish between trials vacated for plea and those because they wouldn’t get on. I think the 1-5 days SA-H referred to is a part response to this. /8
The obsession with ineffective trials (including cracks) is a long held HMCTS obsession. Many initiatives have been launched over the years to try and “cure the problem” – eg Effective Trial Management Programme (2004). /9
The real issues for all involved have always been getting cases completed. Timeliness stats are dealt with in two ways – there used to be targets (different bail/custody) for cases being dealt with – certain % to be dealt with by target date. /10
Also they measured waiting time – weeks from sending to first main hearing for trial. Measured as an average so probably not really identifying slippage with the serious offence bail cases getting further and further away from sending. /11
Current problems would seem to arise from the unexpected slashing of sitting days. LOs will have been cautious listing ahead, but will have been caught with cases listed months ago expecting to have judges, but now told cannot have judges. /12
Also they will have fresh custody cases coming in which need priority listing cos of CTLs and so no option but to bump bail cases out. /13
Whether you take out before the day or leave in with hope it might resolve is a difficult call. Cracked trial rates differ across the country. It's a difficult call. /14
Sorry to be so longwinded but I wanted to paint a reasonably full picture so that arguments to increase sitting days can be well grounded. /end
